In the secret hidden multi-site forum we have been discussing having a multi-team demogame within CFC, a PBEM with multiple human players and teams playing instead of individuals. This would be two or more local CFC teams, each with its own private subforum if we feel we need it, or on their honor not to look at each other's private spoiler thread.

It is now time to take that idea public and see how much more interest we can get. :D

Advantages to this game are many

Neophytes can learn human v. human tactics
A chance to practice multi-team in preparation for the next multi-site DG
A PBEM with teams doesn't face the specter of dropouts killing the game, as long as a whole team doesn't drop
Each team can organize itself how it wants
I hope we'll do this to have fun, but it can also be a competition


Please register your interest here, and favor us with your comments on what you'd like to see in the game.

I would like to see a custom map to make sure all starts are reasonably equivalent.

I would like to see AI civs on the map.

I think it is a great idea, and I would play, or if you prefer, provide a map.

I would love to join this. I have also voted on that secret forum agreeing with this idea. Let the games begin.

If we do this, then I don't want any AI. Human vs. human vs. human vs. human (depending on how many teams) would be a lot more fun, challenging, and less annoying.

I would definetly do this!
I think 2 teams would be enough, not shur on AIs right now...

This is basically a combo of DG6 and the ISDG, I love this idea!!!

I helped run something like this about a year and a half back on CDG.

Trust me, alot more work and effort than it's worth. It was hard, and that was with Elucidus granting us 3 public forums and 4 private forums (a private forums for each of the teams).

I helped run something like this about a year and a half back on CDG.

Trust me, alot more work and effort than it's worth. It was hard, and that was with Elucidus granting us 3 public forums and 4 private forums (a private forums for each of the teams).

I would be interested in hearing more about your experiences, maybe in a separate thread would be best.

Would you be interested in being a player? Your post isn't clear on that...

My thoughts are the multi-team part of it would have very few rules, just the anti-exploit rules which are commonly used. Each team would be free to organize itself however the players want. If a "professional admin" volunteered so much the better.

Not that I'm interested, ISDG has been enough for me for the time being. Playing these 50 turns really got my guts crooked.

But a game with 2 human players without AI is a very specific kind of game. I would even say extremely specific. Adding a third or fourth player might slow the things down but would yield a more reasonable game. It is really completely different. For example, there is no need for diplomacy, players can even start in a locked war if there are only two of them. Whereas with more human players, there is a choice of alliances/wars or just trading options. Certainly, with AIs, it is even more different from a typical ISDG setting.

And if it is a purely multihuman game without AI, it better be played with UN rules. When AI is included rules can be negotiated but many players would prefer Aggie's ruleset. (see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=99517) It is a long thread but most of the info is essential.

It also seems a rather peculiar variant which has been recently tried by CFC-CIVRU in a match where each team has 3 civs to handle: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114548

It is not a demogame style but there can be great discussions and complete interchangeability of all players to make sure the game is not dead.

I think four teams would be a nice combo.

I'm interested in playing and would like to see at least 3 human teams and up to 3 AIs and maybe on a small map to get to the juicy bits quicker.

I only own PTW, so I will be limited in what roles I can play if C3C is chosen.

I am also strongly in favor of all threads in a public forum so that lurkers can participate. Honor system will be used to prevent spoiler info from crossing teams. Note that the honor system must be used anyways or spoiler info can be gathered from some tools.

Then again, if Mad-Bax makes a map for us he can include the secret method used by the GOTM people to turn off spoiler info in some of the utilities.

I would like to see a custom map to make sure all starts are reasonably equivalent.

I would like to see AI civs on the map.

I think it is a great idea, and I would play, or if you prefer, provide a map.
That would have been great for the ISDG, had that happened. :rolleyes:

I don't know if I'd want to play, but there needs to be a way (not closed thread?) so I can lurk :D .

Is this thing going to happen?

I would like to see it get started. Here are some things for discussion:


How many teams?
How are teams decided?
Private forums, or spoiler thread rules?
Map generation
AIs?
Rules


I would like to see more, smaller teams vs. fewer larger teams, as long as each team has at least 3 players. More teams = more diplomacy to practice. If we have an experienced PBEM player on each team it is a bonus.

The private forum question is hard to answer until we know how many would be needed.

We need a map which is relatively balanced. AI's, if present, need to be balanced with players (2+2, 3+3, 4+4 only) and selected carefully. I agree with the previous comments on rules.

or invite that bamspeedy who done the beyond sid game, and we can just play against him

or invite that bamspeedy who done the beyond sid game, and we can just play against him
it is very different playing against humans than AIs, humans use armies, AIs dont, AIs are artifical and have no feelings, humans do, etc...

doesnt look like many people are excited about this, civ4 is only 5 monthes away, looks like we might be waiting till then

I would like to join into this MTDG if it ever gets started. This would be a good oportunity to sharpen up our team skills for the next MSDG. I hope I did not signed up too late since I realy want to see this rolling :).

Um... nothing's really being done...

With the forum setup, while there was activity in the ISDG forum it hides the updates in this forum. I think I'll start a new signup thread, and if we get roughly 10 or more people then we'll have enough to try a 2 team experiment. The more the merrier of course. :D

With the forum setup, while there was activity in the ISDG forum it hides the updates in this forum. I think I'll start a new signup thread, and if we get roughly 10 or more people then we'll have enough to try a 2 team experiment. The more the merrier of course. :D
Well, you can ask Chieftess if she can place an adnouncement to bring in some more people to signn up :).

If we do a Tiny Map, 1 vs 1 (no AI's) then the game won't be boringly long and we can keep interest fairly easily.

Also it will do us a lot of good if we had both teams share the same TC. That way both can do their turns at the same time. One team does their turn, pass the save to the next team. Saves a lot of time instead of 1 turn a day.

Also it will do us a lot of good if we had both teams share the same TC. That way both can do their turns at the same time. One team does their turn, pass the save to the next team. Saves a lot of time instead of 1 turn a day.

I doubt were even have TC's, it'll take far to much time. Most likely the elected team captain will just play the save.

TC?

no, we need three teams for a game that will last untill december, when we will make the civ IV ISDG III.

So far we have 9 signed up, which is two teams of 4-5 people, three teams of 3, or four teams of 2+.

Now how should we decide how many teams, and handle team signups?

Since the objective was to practice human v human skills including diplomacy and reading the situation, if we could somehow get 4 teams to allow for some alliance building that would be cool. Can't practice diplomacy with fewer than 3 teams of course. If we focus mostly on strategy and tactics then even 2 teams is good enough.

I like the idea of four teams. Once we get this game going and have a front page announcement, I forsee participation skyrocketing.

So far 3 teams is looking good. However, if more join, we will need to do a round robin draft selection :)

I like the idea of four teams. Once we get this game going and have a front page announcement, I forsee participation skyrocketing.

Yup, should help. I'll join this.

I would really like to have TC's where 10 turns or so are played. True PBEM will take forever. Just imagine: with 3-4 teams you can do probably 1 turn per week....

Quite indifferent about the Honor system. We could have public forums for fun exchanges, and private forums for sensitive discussions. Privacy could be enforced or by honor code. The (S)GOTM police (AlanH, Ainwood) claim that they can detect peeking in restricted forums...

Four teams equals one turn per week? Heck, in the Intersite Democracy Game, with five teams, we often got two. I suggest that we start randomly dividing people into four teams and begin discussing rules/game parameters.

Four teams equals one turn per week? Heck, in the Intersite Democracy Game, with five teams, we often got two. I suggest that we start randomly dividing people into four teams and begin discussing rules/game parameters.

Ok, maybe I'm underestimating - I have no experience with these things.
Instead of a random division it might be good to have at least 1 experienced Multiplayer-DG player per team.

Well, here's the sign-up list thus far (ten brave souls :) ). The bolded ones are people who I remember being very active in the ISDG:

*DaveShack - ISDG Experience
*Ginger_Ale - ISDG Experience (if I recall correctly)
*Black_Hole - ISDG Experience
*classical_hero - ISDG Experience
*CivGeneral - ISDG Experience
*Emp.Napoleon - ISDG Experience
*Double Stack - ISDG Experience
*Strider - ISDG Experience (if I recall correctly)
*RegentMan - ISDG Experience
*Zyxy

I hope I got the ISDG experience/bolding correct. Let me know if I've failed otherwise.

Maybe if we could have an ad on the front page. I think that there are many people (like myself) who don't like the regular demo game, so do not hang around the demogame forums. But those people may like a multi-team demo game.

I like three teams, but four would be better. Maybe if we can spread the word to other civ forums (particularly the ones who were defeated in the primaries) we can get more people.

Well, here's the sign-up list thus far (ten brave souls :) ). The bolded ones are people who I remember being very active in the ISDG:

*DaveShack - ISDG Experience
*Ginger_Ale - ISDG Experience (if I recall correctly)
*Black_Hole - ISDG Experience
*classical_hero - ISDG Experience
*CivGeneral - ISDG Experience
*Emp.Napoleon - ISDG Experience
*Double Stack - ISDG Experience
*Strider - ISDG Experience (if I recall correctly)
*RegentMan - ISDG Experience
*Zyxy

I hope I got the ISDG experience/bolding correct. Let me know if I've failed otherwise.

I was one of the orginal admins for the ISDG (the conquests one), before FortyJ.

keep it at 2 teams... we need as many people as possible on each team... I think we should also advertise this in the single player demogame forum

But two teams means war is a certainty. Four teams allows diplomacy to florish.

@Strider - Sorry. Didn't know.

keep it at 2 teams... we need as many people as possible on each team... I think we should also advertise this in the single player demogame forum
We should have each teams have equal amount of people ;).

This might get interest if posted in the succession game forum...very skilled players over there, watch out! :mischief:

But two teams means war is a certainty. Four teams allows diplomacy to florish.

@Strider - Sorry. Didn't know.
if we have 4 teams, we really need a high participation level, very high

Maybe if we could have an ad on the front page. I think that there are many people (like myself) who don't like the regular demo game, so do not hang around the demogame forums. But those people may like a multi-team demo game.

I like three teams, but four would be better. Maybe if we can spread the word to other civ forums (particularly the ones who were defeated in the primaries) we can get more people.
Perhaps we should all put this thread into our sig so that it draws attention. We need to get the word out about this. The more people the better. So far it seems that those who have singed up have been part of the ISDG structure before. We need to get recuiting people.

Again, this is overselling. No need to advertise a half-made vision that is surely going to turn sour. We will see the same "veterans" insist on revisiting their dogma from past demogames, and we will see a new flawed half-made consitution where the main drafter will exclude sound inputs and assure some short term fame and glory. I am glad I joined CGN for the intersite finals, since it is a culture to my liking. There, the moderator and king is the same person, a bit undemocratic, but much much more fair and transparent, and no hidden agendas. I would say that the democracy there is much better and more functional, and you got some leeway in airing your views, popular or impopular. I just had to say this. It is culture that is the problem, not the structure. With a better culture, the structure would find itself.

I think 4 teams would be better, since it would make diplomacy a lot more interesting. 2 teams could be a bit bland, but if we don't get a lot of people, we might be forced to just have 2.

If I hear about CGN culture one more time, Provo...

The signature idea is a pretty good one. I've had it in mine for a couple days now. Did any of you recent sign-ups get here via the links in my sig?

We will see the same "veterans" insist on revisiting their dogma from past demogames, and we will see a new flawed half-made consitution where the main drafter will exclude sound inputs and assure some short term fame and glory.

Interesting technique, but I doubt the fish are biting. :p

The idea is called "Multi-team demogame" because the teams may choose to organize themselves as democracies -- or not. It is located here because the DG forum was a convenient place to hang our hats.

Now, I actually would like to hear constructive comments, so try this and we'll see what happens. Forget demogames, this does not come close to being the same kind of setup. Think of this as a PBEM where teams of people are signing up instead of individuals. It doesn't matter how those teams are organized, but we do need to have enough people on each team to sustain a good play rate in the face of vacations, unforseen events, and losing interest. If we get extremely lucky and some member of each team is available to play at the same time, we might get several rounds of turns done in a play session.

Would your impression of the idea be improved if we had a forum under Multiplayer for "Team PBEM"? Or is the forum location immaterial? Any suggestions on getting across the idea that this is not just another demogame variation?

Then I suggest to take the intersite Demogame finals ruleset and set up a similar UN structure, not reinvent the gunpowder

I know that DGVI is coming to an end and discussions for DGVII is spewing about but are we still considering team PBEM?

Been a week since anybody said anything. I don't have any experience in Intersite DG other than signing up and watching us get killed.

I would suggest a small number of teams, preferrably just two teams but three might be pleasantly doable. It would also be nice to have some kind of short term victory goals so it doesn't get drawn out and bring everyone into the kingdom of Boredom.

Perhaps we could combine the two? Make DGVII a four-way PBEM cut throat?

Perhaps we could combine the two? Make DGVII a four-way PBEM cut throat?

That would be beautiful!

Make Provolution in charge of one team! :D

Making DG7 a multi-team game is definitely one of the possibilities to spice it up a bit.

I am not setting up a team just to be put to the firing squad by a group of vengeful teens, as meteorpunch is hinting out. I do not have time for that.

I am not setting up a team just to be put to the firing squad by a group of vengeful teens, as meteorpunch is hinting out. I do not have time for that.
:rotfl: so true...

If this happens, and there are 4 teams, it seems like there needs to be some pregame diplomacy rules so that the most obvious strategy, teaming up on the little guy, doesn't happen. Perhaps each civ couldn't be in more than 1 alliance at once. :undecide:

Making DG7 a multi-team game is definitely one of the possibilities to spice it up a bit.
we could even start soon, because the culture win we are working on will take until early september.... as in get everything hammered out right away and then start almost immediatly once DG6 ends

Okay, do we want:

*A custom map?
*Rules à la the ISDG?
*An admin à la the ISDG?

I would consider doing this but I'd want to pick my team of players.

Personally I like the locked alliance idea akots put together for RegentMan, Tomoyo and I vs. Ru.civ.

I think it would be interesting to have 4v4 but 2v2 on each continent. It could make for some interesting tactics and swings in the game.

No locked alliances, that would do away with us diplomats :)

I really like the idea of having the regular demo game being the multi-team, we can actually get four teams this way. Admins can be one or two of the DG mods, and using the ISDG ruleset.

Here's what I could think of that we need to do to get this started:

*Get enough people for four teams (about seven to ten).
*Have the admin randomly organize everyone into four teams (I'm willing to be the admin).
*Get each team their private forum (talk to Thunderfall about this).
*Keep a public "UN" forum that everyone can access which contains the following:
*Turn tracker thread.
*Ruleset.
*Protest threads.
*Team information thread.
*Have each team poll the following:
*Their team's name.
*World settings.
*Discuss/Approve a ruleset/keeping the acting admin.
*Discuss/Ratify a constitution.
*E-mail address.
*Start the game.

Any additions?

Excellent Idea RM.

Do we want the admin to refrain from playing? If yes, maybe we should seek out someone who doesn't want to be an active player.

Well, if someone who doesn't want to play steps up, then that would be okay. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind not playing to try and get this thing started.

I would be willing, but I have not computer access during August (except the last week or so). Check your PMs RM.

Let's just start this thing.

I am constructing my own team if that's ok.

Well, Ginger_Ale and myself are getting the wheels moving. We've been e-mailing each other and PMing the needed people. Right now, the only brick wall I can see is the lack of players. At least seven per team will probably be needed before we can start polling game options.

I don't think I will have a problem getting a team together. Four of us so far.

I'll go on any team that needs people, so to keep things even all around.


EDIT: 700th post. :dance: :clap: :coffee: :beer: :dance:

No reason to set a lower limit on number of people in a team -- though obviously it wouldn't be a team if only one played... ;)

How many teams do we have so far?

How many teams do we have so far?
The teams haven't been constructed yet but you're with me kiddo. I have pms to a number of people so if I get 10-12 back maybe we can break up into 2 teams. So far we have 5 on our team. Soul Warrior, Pentium, Darwin420, Iroquios Plisken and "lil old me.

Well, I had envisioned four teams of people. I was hoping to get at least seven per team before we got started.

I suspect more will join as we get the game started. No reason to believe that the average of 5 per team we have now wouldn't do.

The most important question is, have you lined up a mapmaker? After the examples of the 2 inter-site games, I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't want balanced starts.

I would like to see a custom map to make sure all starts are reasonably equivalent.

I would like to see AI civs on the map.

I think it is a great idea, and I would play, or if you prefer, provide a map.
Maybe we should ask mad-bax for a map. ;)

*blonding was mine

I suspect more will join as we get the game started. No reason to believe that the average of 5 per team we have now wouldn't do.

The most important question is, have you lined up a mapmaker? After the examples of the 2 inter-site games, I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't want balanced starts.

mad-bax is away on vacation iirc, or he hasn't posted.

I will post a map request at CDZ - those guys are expert mapmakers - once we decide on settings.